Search

Traditionally, scientists have placed more emphasis on communicating inferential uncertainty (i.e., the precision of statistical estimates) compared to outcome variability (i.e., the predictability of individual outcomes). Here, we show that this can lead to sizable misperceptions about the implications of scientific results. Specifically, we present three preregistered, randomized experiments where participants saw the same scientific findings visualized as showing only inferential uncertainty, only outcome variability, or both and answered questions about the size and importance of findings they were shown. Our results, composed of responses from medical professionals, professional data scientists, and tenure-track faculty, show that the prevalent form of visualizing only inferential uncertainty can lead to significant overestimates of treatment effects, even among highly trained experts. In contrast, we find that depicting both inferential uncertainty and outcome variability leads to more accurate perceptions of results while appearing to leave other subjective impressions of the results unchanged, on average. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the concept of experiment aversion (EA) and its applicability in different situations. The authors argue that EA can be influenced by various factors and can be reduced through interventions that address biases. They criticize a previous study that denied the existence of EA, pointing out flaws in its methodology and failure to consider certain factors. The authors emphasize the significance of consent and the impact of perceived knowledge on EA. They conclude that while EA can vary across contexts and societies, it is a phenomenon that can be alleviated. The text suggests that researchers should focus on understanding the circumstances and causes of EA, as well as finding ways to mitigate it, rather than attempting to disprove its existence. [Extracted from the article]

Encouraging vaccination is a pressing policy problem. To assess whether text-based reminders can encourage pharmacy vaccination and what kinds of messages work best, we conducted a megastudy. We randomly assigned 689,693 Walmart pharmacy patients to receive one of 22 different text reminders using a variety of different behavioral science principles to nudge flu vaccination or to a business-as-usual control condition that received no messages. We found that the reminder texts that we tested increased pharmacy vaccination rates by an average of 2.0 percentage points, or 6.8%, over a 3-mo follow-up period. The most-effective messages reminded patients that a flu shot was waiting for them and delivered reminders on multiple days. The top-performing intervention included two texts delivered 3 d apart and communicated to patients that a vaccine was "waiting for you." Neither experts nor lay people anticipated that this would be the best-performing treatment, underscoring the value of simultaneously testing many different nudges in a highly powered megastudy., Competing Interests: Competing interest statement: K.G.V. is a part-owner of VAL Health, a behavioral economics consulting firm., (Copyright © 2022 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.)